2014 (6) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR)) JUDGEMENT Per: P K Jain 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are having certain Petroleum Products Outlets which are owned by them but the same are leased out to their dealers for sale of their petroleum products. In these outlets they have facilities to store the petroleum products, namely petrol, diesel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot be said that the appellants are providing any storage or warehousing service. At the most it can be said that they are providing services relating to renting of tangible goods. The learned counsel also stated that from 2008 onwards they are paying service tax under the category of supply of tangible goods service. 3. The learned A.R. reiterated various points mentioned in the impugned order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tlets are under the control of the dealers and not of the appellant. It is not as if the dealers bring their goods to the appellant for storing or warehousing and thereafter clear the goods so stored. Appellant only owns and leases facilities to the dealers for their use. Keeping in view the nature of transaction the service provided cannot be considered as storage and warehousing service provided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X